Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump Sends Aircraft Carrier To Caribbean In Major Escalation; Letitia James Pleads Not Guilty In Mortgage Case; The Tip Of The Gambling Iceberg? Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired October 24, 2025 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
GINEVRA IVERSON, EXECUTIVE CHEF, FOOD NETWORK: And so, um, it has carried on. It's root (ph) like half vinegar, half red wine, and you marinate it for a couple of days.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, SALEM RADIO HOST: You braised it with what?
IVERSON: Half vinegar and red wine.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: We also have a --
JENNINGS: Aromatic you said?
IVERSON: Aromatic.
PHILLIP: We also have a little moment here for our friend, Scott Jennings.
JENNINGS: Hey!
PHILLIP: He is getting one year older.
JENNINGS: Hey!
(LAUGHTER)
UNKNOWN: Oh!
PHILLIP: Happy birthday, Scott!
JENNINGS: Thank you all.
PHILLIP: Thank you all for joining us. You can scan that QR code for the sauerbraten recipe. And chef, you, uh, have given us another great meal. Thank you so much for watching "NewsNight." Don't miss our conversation show, "Table for Five" tomorrow morning. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, warships, boats strikes, and reported plans to strike cocaine facilities. President Trump is up in the ante in Latin America without any sign- off from the branch (ph). Well, that's supposed to keep him in check. Plus, call it the upside down. Letitia James appears in court not as New York's attorney general, but as a defendant inside her strategy to get the case tossed. And is the NBA betting scandal just the tip of the iceberg? A former ref who was busted for gambling tells me how deep it goes. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
All right, remember when we were kids and we said things like, says who, and then some authority figure would then say, says me? We're set up as a society to have some kind of power dynamic, right? Where someone is giving permission. There's always someone who signs off. It's a boss, it's a board, it's a parent, it's a check, it's a balance. Someone got to approve what you're doing.
Well, forget testing the idea that it's better to ask for forgiveness and permission. President Trump is testing whether he really has to ask for permission at all. Exhibit A, he's making it look like we could soon be at war in Latin America without the go ahead from Congress. You see this giant aircraft carrier? It's the USS Gerald R. Ford, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is ordering it to the Caribbean along with the warships and military planes that go with it.
And sources are also telling CNN that Trump is considering plans to target cocaine facilities inside Venezuela. Never mind that Venezuela isn't even a major source of cocaine, we understand.
But on top of all that, you've got the boat strikes. You're hearing a lot about them, and there has been a lot of them. Ten, 10 that we actually know about. Eight of them in the Caribbean and two in the Pacific where the campaign appears to be expanding. Hegseth says that 43 people have been killed in all. The administration is using one word for the targets.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: I said we smoked a drug boat, and there's 11 narcoterrorists at bottom of the ocean.
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: These are narcoterrorists who are trying to bring poison into our country and kill our citizens.
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: This administration is not going to tolerate international narcoterrorist organizations from trafficking drugs into the United States.
MARCO RUBIO, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: The president the United States is going to wage war on narcoterrorist organizations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: You got the key word, right? Narcoterrorists. And know why that's important? Because it's not just political rhetoric. It actually means something in the law. It's an attempt at a kind of legal framing to orient the discussion and inform you and signal what's happening. And let's put aside the fact that Trump's team has given no concrete evidence to back up their claims.
Basically, the president says the people he's targeting aren't just drug smugglers, they're terrorists. In this case, what was the key word? Narcoterrorists. And according to him, he says these Latin American drug cartels threaten the very security of the United States. And because he's labeling them as terrorists, his argument boils down to this. National security is the president's lane. And he can use military force to stop them. And no congressional approval required.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I don't think we're going to necessarily ask for a declaration of war. I think we're just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. Okay? We're going to kill them. You know, they're going to be like dead.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, there's a huge due process argument, right? And the way that as a justice system, we approach the accused in peace times and in everyday legal courses, right?
[23:04:55]
There's also another glaring problem here because that label alone does not actually give the president the authorization for war, whether it's, again, so-called narcoterrorists or even the government of Venezuela. It actually doesn't give him express -- expressly written authorization from military force of any kind.
We're actually in a world where there's no precedent for any president launching a military campaign against a designated terrorist group without congressional approval. Now, Congress gave the green light against Al-Qaeda and its affiliates after 9/11. But that seems to be it. We're doing the research. Not cartels. Not narcoterrorists. So, where are we? Well, we find ourselves in untested waters. I mean, literally, figuratively, legally. And this question of authority, authority beyond Congress, isn't only about war, okay? It's about something else that Trump claims is his power alone.
And I point to you to exhibit B now. Talking about tariffs. The president is literally moments away from leaving for Asia where he will meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping. You're looking at live pictures, by the way, of Joint Base Andrews. I wonder if he'll say anything. But on the agenda, hopes of a trade deal. But even Trump gets one, and that's a big if, if there's a different tariff fight waiting back home. There's a different tariff fight waiting back home because he has implemented them without any input from Congress.
And in a week and a half, the Supreme Court is going to hear arguments about whether he is abusing his power by giving lawmakers a kind of runaround. And the president thinks the case is so important that he might show up to the Supreme Court.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: If we don't win that case, we will be a -- uh, weakened, troubled, financial mess for many, many years to come. That's why I think I'm going to go to the Supreme Court to watch it. I've not done that. And I had some pretty big cases.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: He did indeed. Look, the Constitution had never promised certainty. But it did hope for limits. And the question is, what happens when those limits are tested, stretched, bent, if not broken? And who asks for forgiveness and who gives the permission?
We begin our conversation with one of the most experienced reporters in this space. I'm talking about CNN political and national security analyst David Sanger. He has covered five presidents. He has written four books about national security. He has tracked Trump's trade and foreign policy agenda as close as anyone for "The New York Times." He joins us tonight.
David, I mean, you have recently described the administration's movements in Latin America as psychological warfare. Do we know specifically what Trump's goal is? Is it taking out the cartels or is it regime change with Maduro?
DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE AND NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES: Or we don't know, and the reason we don't know is the president hasn't told us. Um, he has described these (INAUDIBLE) against narcoterrorists. And you have that just right, this is another context here. Fifth of August (ph) when we saw boats like this. The Coast Guard, sometimes with the backup of the Navy, would go out, hail the boat. If it didn't stop, they would send a sharpshooter to take out the engine. When the boat actually was adrift, they would go and arrest everybody. That hasn't happened in this particular case.
Now, the other thing that we have seen happened at various moments is that the president has made efforts to go intimidate Maduro, but we have not seen any evidence yet that the U.S. has any authorization to go into Venezuela, and that's what we're trying to figure out now, which is what kind of authorization would he need?
COATES: Uh-hmm.
SANGER: Does he believe he needs any?
COATES: And, of course, the buck seemed to stop with him and what he thinks he needs. You heard him yourself talk about not needing congressional approval and talking about the idea of killing people, even in spite of the idea of what we do have in this country with people who stand accused. We do require evidence, we do require at least some due process, we do require at least some congressional insight, if not oversight.
But I want to turn to Canada because that controversial Reagan ad that ticked off President Trump enough to end the trade talks --
SANGER: Yeah.
COATES: -- it's coming down.
[23:09:55]
But there's a caveat, David, because only after the ad gets a few more plays during the World Series games which, of course, are going on right now, and Prime Minister Carney had this to say. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK CARNEY, PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA: For months, we have stressed the importance of distinguishing things we can control and things we can't control. Uh, we can't control the trade policy of the United States. We recognize that that policy has fundamentally changed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: But, you know, he's heading to Asia as well to establish some new alliances. So, explain what's behind this shift.
SANGER: Well, I'm in Canada tonight, and I had a chance this evening to talk to some, uh, Canadian leaders and so forth. This ad was, um, put up and showed up on some American, uh, television shows. And what it is essentially is playing, not completely in order but pretty faithfully, a Ronald Reagan 1987, um, radio talk in which he basically makes the case about why tariffs ultimately come back to haunt you.
The big message of this when you listen to the entire ad is that the Republican Party has drifted far from where Ronald Reagan is. Well, that's not news to any of us here. But the fact that the president got so upset about this that he, uh, cut off the negotiations, but then he accused, uh, the Canadian government of trying to interfere in that Supreme Court case that you were referring to before, this is a little bit rich.
But this is the same president who stood at the Knesset two weeks ago and during the hostage release urged, uh, the president of Israel to pardon Bibi Netanyahu in his criminal trial. It's the same president who put tariffs on Brazil because he didn't like the court case going on against former President Bolsonaro for attempting a coup.
So, um, he knows a fair bit about interfering in domestic processes. It was pretty remarkable to see him cut off the negotiations with the, uh -- with the Canadians. And, as you suggest, it may just drive them into China's arms.
COATES: I mean, just for people to understand, the Supreme Court is going to be weighing and entertaining legal arguments from two sides as well as amicus briefs, and they weigh a whole lot of matters. I -- I don't know that the Supreme Court is going to value the opinion of Canada more than every other argument they're actually going to --
SANGER: Yeah.
COATES: -- hear in the Supreme Court. So, that's just that as well as -- quote, unquote -- "interference" --
SANGER: Oh, even what Ronald Reagan's --
COATES: Yeah, what he said --
SANGER: -- or even what Ronald Reagan said 30 years ago.
COATES: Yeah.
SANGER: Yeah, that's right.
COATES: We seem to be in a different world. I don't know where that is right now, but it's not here.
SANGER: Yeah.
COATES: David Sanger, thank you so much.
SANGER: Thank you.
COATES: Well, you know, the president is bypassing Congress on his military campaign against drug cartels and also tariffs. I wonder how that is sitting with lawmakers. Well, joining me now, former Republican congressman from Alabama, Mo Brooks. He served in the all- important House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees.
Congressman, thank you for being here. I really want to understand your position here as well because the former deputy assistant attorney general in the George W. Bush administration, his name is John Yoo, as you know, he says that these strikes on alleged drug boats, that they violate the Constitution. Listen to him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN YOO, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: The United States can't wage war constitutionally, I think, or legally against criminal groups. The foreign drug cartels are not really using armed force against the United States. For it to be legal to use force against any combatant, it has to be a war. We don't have any kind of Supreme Court decisions or congressional declarations against drug cartels.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Congressman, you support these strikes, though. Do you share any concern about the legality that Congress is not giving the authorization or at least even being looped in?
MO BROOKS, FORMER ALABAMA REPRESENTATIVE: Well, by way of background, we have roughly 100,000 people a year in America who are dying because of the activity of what the administration is calling narcoterrorists.
COATES: Hmm.
BROOKS: And these kinds of killings have been going on for a long time. When you put that in perspective, after five years of deaths in the United States because of this kind of conduct and other drug activities, you have more people killed in the United states because of this kind of conduct, again, for emphasis, than we had killed by Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and imperious, uh, Japan in World War II. So, for someone to say --
COATES: Well, nobody wants anyone to die from -- I don't want to cut you off, but I want to be really clear in understanding your analogy you're raising here. Everyone wants drugs to stop.
[23:15:00]
Nobody wants deaths to occur. The real question is the mechanism by doing so. Is this the appropriate or legal way?
BROOKS: What differences -- oh, on our side, okay. Well, the law is as clear as mud. That's pretty much the way to express it. You've got the United States Constitution that uniquely makes the president the commander-in-chief, and then you've got another provision, the Constitution that says only Congress can declare a war. Well, no more has been declared. For that matter, we haven't had a war declared since World War II, but we sure have fought in Korea, we fought in Vietnam, we fought numerous occasions in different parts of the Middle East and Afghanistan. So, the law is very unclear and you can make an argument both ways. Quite frankly, though, I'm thankful that --
COATES: But what should it be, congressman? I mean -- but what should --
BROOKS: Go ahead.
COATES: I mean -- I hear you. I'm sorry to cut you off because I'm really curious. What should it be? I hear your position of saying, well, some things like this have happened where a president is acting or there's no declaration of war. But we do have deference to a president in some areas. But we also have due process. Are you comfortable with the fact that we don't have information or at least Congress and oversight?
I mean, Senator Lankford talking about that -- that -- that he would be apoplectic if this were happening in the Biden administration and others would be that Congress left in the dark. I mean, yes, there's a drug problem, yes, there is the War Powers Act, but the president essentially saying, we're just going to kill people in the Caribbean and in the seas because, trust me, there's drug activity there, is that enough to comply with what you believe the Constitution says?
BROOKS: Absolutely. We didn't have any due process for the people, for the Germans, the Italians, and the Japanese that were killed during World War II. We did not have any due process --
COATES: That was war.
BROOKS: -- for the people who were killed in Vietnam, which was not ever declared to be a war --
COATES: Uh-hmm. BROOKS: -- or in the Middle East, which was not clear to be a war. That's why you can take either side of this argument all through -- the Supreme court is going to have to rule. But until they give a definitive ruling, there is no clarity and the president is going to do what he thinks is best to try to say some amount of those 100,000 dead Americans who were killed annually because of the narcoterrorists and others who deal in the drug trade.
COATES: Do you want to see -- as a member of Congress, I'm assuming you would have wanted to see some evidence that -- and transparency that gives that through line. But without that, you would be satisfied with just the, look, this is the only way to do it, forget even waiting to apprehend when they're on shore or anything like that, this is okay.
BROOKS: Well, I served in Congress, I served on the House Armed Services Committee --
COATES: Yeah.
BROOKS: -- and I've been on a lot of different briefings. In my judgment, the evidence is overwhelming that these kinds of submarines and or cigar boats or whatever you want to call them, they are used in the drug trade and they are a primary vehicle for getting drugs out of one country into United States either directly or indirectly through an intermediary nation. So, I don't have much more reservations there. And I looked at each of the vessels that I've been able to see just go poof, blown up. I've yet to see any fishing gear on any of those vessels.
So, this masquerade that the cartels are coming back with, that these are fishermen, well, we're in the world of the fishing nets or the fishing poles.
(LAUGHTER)
They are on these boats.
COATES: Have they been blown up? I mean, I take -- I take your point. I take your point. But, I mean, they've been blown up. I know we have to go, congressman, but I have to ask you because you seem quite clear about the authority of the president to act unilaterally in this capacity. You have been very strong, though, when it comes to pushing against even -- I think it was in 2013 when Obama did this. But more to the point now, not this exact scenario, but more to the point now, you have a very different take when it comes to tariffs.
Could you just briefly explain why you think with tariffs, the president of United States is at a very slippery slope to act unilaterally without congressional approval or input because of the power of the purse, but when it comes to this, you think he has the ultimate authority? Could you explain a little bit?
BROOKS: Sure. Uh, when we're talking about military activity, there is ambiguity in the Constitution. When you talk about taxes, there is no ambiguity. Only the United States Congress can raise taxes. And people may not realize this, but for the first century or so of our nation's existence, tariffs were the primary source of tax revenue for the federal government. And every single time, you saw the United States Congress voting on it.
And I don't believe that the president of United States has the lawful authority to raise tariffs without a vote of the United States Congress because the Constitution says so. Now, the argument will be raised that Congress has somehow (INAUDIBLE) that duty to the executive branch.
[23:20:04]
I don't believe that Congress has the authority. And there's nothing in the Constitution that says it has the authority to put a specific power and duty delegated to the United States Congress to the executive branch. And that's the argument right now that's ongoing with respect to these tariffs.
But I believe that they are illegal and unconstitutional until such time as Congress votes on them. Now, Congress doesn't want to vote on them because of the political ramifications. A lot of these people who are impacted by terrorists, well, they contribute to campaigns. And you know how senators and congressmen are, they very much covet those campaign contributions, and that's probably the primary reason why they've shirked their responsibility to vote on these tariffs.
COATES: Sounds like a good case for the Supreme Court to reconcile the split screen. Congressman Mo Brooks, thank you.
BROOKS: Thank you.
COATES: Still ahead, speaking of the courts, there was a stunning one in New York. The New York A.G. stepped into the role of indicted defendant. We've got some new insight tonight on how Letitia James plans to beat the case. Plus, the Trump 2028 merch to suggest or is there an actual plan in place? Why Democrats are suddenly taking this very seriously tonight.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:25:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LETITIA JAMES, NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL: But this is not about me. This is about all of us and about a justice system, which has been weaponized.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That's the New York attorney general, Letitia James, moments after she pleaded not guilty to federal charges of mortgage fraud and making false statements. She and her supporters argue those charges are part of President Trump's retribution campaign against his political enemies. And now, she is fighting back by filing several motions to get her case thrown out.
I want to bring in someone who knows the inner workings of DOJ very well, former federal prosecutor and former D.A. for Westchester County, New York, Mimi Rocah. Thank you so much for being here, Mimi. Look, her and her team seem very confident they can get this case thrown out based on a few challenges, one of which is Lindsey Halligan's appointment, they believe, as U.S. attorney is unlawful because of the interim period of time. It's an uncommon motion because it doesn't happen every day, but is it a good or winning motion?
MIMI ROCAH, FORMER WESTCHESTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: So, I think, Laura, here, it is a very meritorious motion, and it's the same motion that Jim Comey and his team made, and it will now be consolidated and heard before the same judge outside of both districts -- the district where both cases are being heard because of conflict issues.
But basically, the idea is that the U.S. attorney can be appointed by the president sort of on an interim basis for 120 days. Once that runs out, the court of that district has to vote on who the U.S. attorney should be or the president has to go through the normal channels and get someone confirmed by the Senate.
Neither of those things happened here. What happened is when Erik Siebert, the interim U.S. attorney, resigned, was forced out, then they just installed Halligan. And so, she's basically not there. She's not in that power, in that seat possessing that power by any legitimate means. And I think this says a lot, right? About it's not just a technicality --
COATES: Hmm.
ROCAH: -- it's that administration here, because they were in such a hurry to get this done, get Comey indicted before the statute of limitations, get Trump the satisfaction of what he was asking for, which was, hey, you know, Pam, go -- go indict these people, they just threw someone in there with no experience and no legitimate authority. And so, the idea is if she's not a legitimate office holder, she can't bring the indictment. And here in this case, she's the one that literally signed and brought the indictment. So, it's double trouble for her, I would say.
COATES: And dismissed with prejudice likely, right? If that's the case, whereas they couldn't try to re-bring the matter, that's going to be very important if you're talking about it, especially if you think about a trial date is set for January 26th. If the motions on what you're describing is not successful, the vindictive or selective prosecution motions are not successful, that's a pretty tight timeline for a trial. Does that help James?
ROCAH: Yeah. You know, there are different theories on whether delay -- I mean, you know, this is a more prosecutor delay, helps the prosecution or the defense. And I think there's not a single answer.
I think, in this case, it absolutely helps both James and Comey. Why? Because, again, it all comes back to this issue that this case -- these cases were charged in a rush, in a hurry by a U.S. attorney, by a prosecutor with no experience. They had to bring in prosecutors from other districts who know nothing about the case. The career prosecutors who knew about the case either resigned or have clearly, I mean, it's apparent, refused to actually do the work on these cases because they find them so unmeritorious and unworthy of prosecution.
And so, you have people who really don't know the facts, who don't know what they're doing, who are not experienced, which I think is shameful, by the way, that there are prosecutors who would come in from another district to do this, but bringing the case in. And so, I think that it absolutely -- the -- the fast pace here helps the defense, for sure.
[23:30:02]
COATES: We'll see if the courts agree ultimately. Mimi, thank you, as always.
ROCAH: Thank you, Laura.
COATES: Still ahead, the East Wing is demolished for a ballroom that Trump may get to use this very term. And the next, the 2028 talk is getting new life tonight. Dan Koh, Lance Trover here with me to debate it all. Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ADAM SILVER, NBA COMMISSIONER: My initial reaction was I was deeply disturbed. There's nothing more important to the league and its fans than the integrity of the competition.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: NBA Commissioner Adam Silver speaking out on the crisis rocking his league and some insiders fear the gambling scandal could get worse.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I don't have any plan to call it after myself. That was expected. Probably going to call it the presidential ballroom or something like that. We haven't really thought about a name yet.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: President Trump just moments ago saying he won't name the White House ballroom after himself. Well, actually, what he hadn't thought about it. It caps a very dizzying week of demolition and controversy. On Monday, the East Wing of the White House, it was still standing. Tonight, no more. The wing that stood for 123 years has been torn down as work continues to build the ballroom. President Trump says donors will pay for it, not the taxpayers.
Let's talk about that, the other questions from this week, the wild one it is in Washington, D.C., with Dan Koh, former special assistant to President Biden, who is also running for Congress to represent Massachusetts, and Republican strategist Lance Trover. Good to have both of you.
I want to start, Dan, with this first question about the ballroom. Um, Is the controversy overblown? I ask that question because Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, she seems to suggest that it is. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. GRETCHEN WHITMER (D-MI): As I have talked to people, I'm telling you, right now, no one is worried about building a ballroom in Washington, D.C. You know, the average person in this country is never going to step foot in a ballroom over the course of a lifetime. But what they do every single day is try to feed their kids, make sure that they get a job to show up to, make sure that they don't hit a pothole on their drive to work, and they have to take money out of their rent or their child care to pay, to fix their damn car. That's why we got to stay focused on the issues that matter to people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Right or wrong?
DAN KOH, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SENIOR AIDE TO PRESIDENT BIDEN: Look, I think it's not about just about the ballroom, it's about what is right and what is wrong. I think reasonable people can disagree on those things. But everyone should agree that a ballroom financed by big tobacco is wrong, that destroying history without any kind of process is wrong. This is a trend we see with Donald Trump.
You're talking earlier about the drone strikes without any due process or deporting people without due process. That's wrong, too. And I know that's not important for Donald Trump, but it is important to Americans, and I think it's against American values.
COATES: What do think?
LANCE TROVER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I think it's classic from a Democrat to say that this is the end of the republic, tearing down the building and building something new on the White House lawn. I mean, I completely agree with the governor. They're not using taxpayer funds. Lord knows if he was using taxpayer funds, they would be going crazy over that as well. I mean, everybody, Democrats and Republicans agree they need more space over there in the White House. They need things like a ballroom that would host this type of -- these types of events.
Again, I just -- what part of the Democrats going to agree with anything that Donald Trump does in this country? I don't think they ever will. I mean, this outrage machine is going on for 10 years. It has nothing to do with being a king and all that stuff. It's the fact that he has a right to do it and they -- they need the space. COATES: Well, Democrats and Republicans have been a little bit questioning this very idea. We'll see what actually happens. I want to go to Steve Bannon, though, because this talk of 2028 is a big one. Here's what he had to say to "The Economist." Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE BANNON, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF STRATEGIST: He's going to get a third term. So, Trump '28. Trump is going to be president in '28. And people just ought to get accommodated with that.
UNKNOWN: What about the 22nd Amendment?
BANNON: There are many different alternatives. At the appropriate time, we'll lay out what the plan is. But there's a plan, and President Trump will be the president in '28.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Yeah, that's not a satisfactory answer at all. What is your reaction to the idea of he'll just become the president a third time in spite of what the Constitution says for limits?
KOH: Well, look, I think that we have seen over and over again things that have happened in this term that no one fathomed even six or seven months ago, right? And so, whether it be mass firings of federal employees taking away their collective bargaining rights, whether it be gutting, you know, USAID and taking away our stand in the world, or even an A.I. video of the president in a plane literally defecating on people exercising their constitutional right, this is just the reality, that the things that were absolutely unacceptable few months ago are now somehow tolerated, and that's unacceptable to me.
COATES: I know he's going to say that at 22nd, you can -- you can't be elected to a third term. That's going to be the thought about how you can navigate this space. But what do you say to this part -- period of time, in 2025, this intimation and, of course, the hat that were trolling Hakeem Jeffries and beyond? What's your reaction to this at this point in his administration?
TROVER: I think it's hilarious.
COATES: Really?
TROVER: Yes. I think -- I think -- look --
(LAUGHTER)
Yes. I think it's hilarious because the liberals explode every time this comes up. Steve Bannon says this stuff to get people excited and get attention. We're talking about it right now on this show.
COATES: So, you don't think he's going to run for a third term.
TROVER: The president has made it clear several times that he's not interested in running for a third term. You hear this all around, circulating around from people like Steve Bannon. He has made it clear that is not any intention of his. And obviously, yes, they would have to change the Constitution to do it.
COATES: What do you say to the idea this is just the idea of trolling?
KOH: I think you just look at all of the things that we thought were unfathomable. Literally, six months ago, I don't think that's true.
[23:40:01]
I would also say another thing about the ballroom. You said that it's essential. We talked about a lot of things when we were in the White House. The size of the ballroom and the function hall was never one of them. You could fit 700 people in the cross hall, which is what you traditionally see for events. That is more than enough.
COATES: The split screen is kind of devastating to think about the federal shutdown right now. I interviewed people earlier in the week. Federal employees were literally in food lines right now, thinking about that.
TROVER: Let's remember why there was a shutdown. Democrats will not pass a clean C.R. and put everybody back to work. That's --
COATES: Well --
TROVER: That's exactly what --
KOH: If Republicans want to end the shutdown today, they could.
TROVER: Oh, this is so crazy.
KOH: They could.
COATES: I got to tell you, I don't care about the shenanigans. There are workers in food lines. Dan, Lance, thank you so much.
TROVER: Thank you.
COATES: The NBA in crisis tonight as the league wonders, will there be more arrests from that massive gambling scandal? And how exactly will the commission handle it? We need perspective tonight from the former referee at the center of NBA's last crisis, Tim Donaghy. He served prison time for his actions. He is standing by with a warning about where this will go next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Deeply disturbed, a pit in my stomach. Those were NBA Commissioner Adam Silver's first public comments on the federal gambling investigation that has rocked the NBA and shaken trust in the league's integrity. But tonight, Silver is standing by the NBA's previous investigation into Miami Heat guard Terry Rozier that found no wrongdoing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SILVER: We, frankly, couldn't find anything. Terry at the time cooperated. He gave the league office his phone. He sat down for an interview. And we ultimately concluded that there was insufficient evidence despite that aberrational behavior to move forward. Two and half years later, he still hasn't been convicted of anything, in fairness to Terry. Obviously, it doesn't look good. But he's now been put on administrative leave. And so, you know, there's a balance here of protecting people's rights and investigating. And as I said, we've been working with the government.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, I remind you, prosecutors are alleging between 2022 and 2024, Rozier and others were sharing insider information with co- conspirators who would then go bet on NBA games. They even alleged that Rozier faked an injury in 2023 when he told people that he planned to leave that game early. Well, now, Congress is demanding answers from the NBA commissioner, and there are growing questions over who else might have been involved.
All this got us thinking, what would Tim Donaghy have to say about all this tonight? You know, he's the former NBA referee who, in 2007, was at the center of one of the biggest scandals in professional basketball. Donaghy was accused of betting on games that he officiated and sharing insider information with gamblers. He eventually pleaded guilty to two federal conspiracy charges and served over a year in prison. The fallout at the time, shocking. That's so shocking that then NBA Commissioner David Stern said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID STERN, FORMER COMMISSIONER, NBA: I can tell you that this is the most serious situation and worst situation that I have ever experienced either as a fan of the NBA, a lawyer for the NBA or a commissioner of the NBA. My reaction was, I can't believe it's happening to us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Tim Donaghy joins me now. He's also the author of the book, "Personal Foul: A First-Person Account of the Scandal that Rocked the NBA." Tim, welcome. I have been eager to pick your brain and get your reaction on what has happened because I've heard you say that this scandal is just the tip of the iceberg. Tell me why.
TIM DONAGHY, FORMER NBA REFEREE CONVICTED IN GAMBLING SCANDAL: You know, I think that, you know, when you talk about the guys that were arrested and what has been said so far, that they're going to have an opportunity to meet now with the FBI agents who are working a case and give their side of the story.
I'm sure when they're looking at between five and 10 years in federal prison, that they're going to have a side of the story and show that there were other people involved and try to reduce their sentences in order to, you know, get back with their family as soon as possible even though, obviously, they've done something wrong.
COATES: Well, obviously, they're presumed innocent. The discussions that will happen, we already know. They said it's going to be an ongoing investigation, which speaks to what your point is about, perhaps, cooperators. It's really curious because when you were charged nearly two decades ago at this point, betting platforms like DraftKings and FanDuel, they weren't a thing. And now, they're everywhere in the sports world, and the NBA actually even has official partnerships with both of those companies.
I wonder, from your perspective, is Adam Silver in a more complicated position than, say, David Stern was in 2007 when dealing with your situation?
DONAGHY: I think for sure because back in 2007, you know, you weren't supposed to be involved in gambling in any way, shape or form. And now, it has evolved to a point where the NBA is partners with a lot of these places in order to generate more revenue and more income so that the players and the coaches and the owners all make more money.
So, I think that it was a slippery slope that they've been going down. And I think that they had big plans of even expanding more. And I think this has definitely put the brakes on that because it has gotten out of hand that, you know, players are getting involved in these prop bets.
[23:49:58]
And it's something where they have to really get these prop bets out of the game so that, you know, players aren't doing things that, you know, the guys were doing like Rozier.
COATES: What do you think is the motivation to get involved in this way? I mean, obviously, people will question the credibility of games and beyond. A lot of people are wondering why some athletes who are so high paid, coaches too, who make a lot of money, why they were willing to risk their careers and their freedom for gambling. Charles Barkley, he doesn't buy the argument that it's an addiction. He calls it stupidity. How do you see it?
DONAGHY: I think it's a little bit of both. You know, I disagree with Charles in regard to that. I think it definitely has to do with a little bit of an addiction. You definitely get, you know, a high from gambling, like people get a high from drugs and alcohol. And Charles should know that because he's a big gambler himself. He says what a high he gets from it.
So, you know, I think there's no doubt that a lot of these players, you know, have a situation where they need this action, they need this excitement. And it's obvious that, you know, if it wasn't for that, would people really, you know, be doing it for the money? I don't think so because, like you said, they make an enormous amount of money. I think that they just like the high of the action, and they got up against the line that they shouldn't have been near and jumped over it and got in bed with people that they shouldn't be hanging out with and, you know, all of sudden, you're in a situation where you can't get out of it.
COATES: These are grown men we're talking about. College students are the worry for many people. Do you think people ought to be worried about college athletes getting involved in this way?
DONAGHY: Yes, I personally believe that you're going to see a major scandal other than the NBA scandal now come from the college level because you're going to have a lot of these athletes that aren't going to make it to the next level and you're going to have people that are associated with organized crime go to them and say, hey, listen, your team is favored by 15 points tonight, win by 10, 11, 12, 13. You know, you don't have to lose the game, just don't cover the spread. Here's 50 grand. We're going to do this five, six times, maybe 10 times before you graduate. This way, you're going to leave college with, you know, a couple hundred grand in your pocket and you're going to have a great start in life because you're never going to make the money that these professional athletes are making. So, you know, take this and take advantage of it while you can.
COATES: You made it relatively easy for the league. You resigned, then you played guilty. We know the NBA did an investigation, at least with respect to one of the players involved here. How should the NBA handle this?
DONAGHY: You know, I think they have to be honest with the fans and take a step back and tell them that, you know, mistakes were made. You're going to now educate the players and the referees and the owners, you know, on a continuous basis and -- and have them understand that when you get involved in something like this, it's basically a death sentence. You know, people lost their careers, they lost their families, they lost their freedom. So, if you want to go down that road, you're really going down a road that you, you know, don't want to be involved with.
COATES: Tim Donaghy, thank you. We'll be right back with this week's CNN hero.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: This week's CNN hero comes to us from Chicago's south side, specifically the neighborhood of Englewood, a classic example of urban blight. Well, decades of economic decline have resulted in empty buildings, which often get torn down, leaving vacant lots behind. But where many only see decay, this week's CNN hero sees potential. Meet Quilen Blackwell.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
QUILEN BLACKWELL, CNN HERO (voice-over): Most people wouldn't expect to see a full flower farm here on the south side of Chicago. It's really cool to be able to bring that beauty to places where people least expect it.
I've been living in Inglewood since 2015. It's one of the more dangerous neighborhoods, high poverty, high urban blight. So, you can kind of see like storefronts that are boarded-up. The building gets condemned. So, knock the building down and not the vacant lot. Yeah, these aren't parks. Most people will see the trash, the vacant lots. For me, I see a potential. We're here to try to bring life.
Southside Blooms is a farm to vase florist. We'll take over vacant lots, grow our own flowers, design them in our flower shop, and then we do retail bouquets, weddings, corporate events, and everything in between. This is about creating opportunity in a place that desperately needs it. We try to get some good stem lengths. You know the drill. A big part of what we do is creating jobs in the floral industry for at-risk youth.
What's your favorite flower?
UNKNOWN (voice-over): The lilies, cosmos. My favorite, it would be the red roses.
BLACKWELL (voice-over): Growing up, I was very fortunate. I had a bevy of opportunities. I came to Chicago, started tutoring at a high school in Inglewood, and I started to just realize I could be any one of these kids. I want to do them tiger lilies. There are people who want a chance at something better.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): You have to grow up fast around here. I lost a lot of friends, end up in jail. I was looking for a job. One of my friends, he was like, hey, bro, I got a job. I'm like, bro, flowers, what? Working here, I see myself changing, calmer, into nature. This was just an empty parking lot.
UNKNOWN: We did this, we started all this, we cleaned it up. It's our community. I'm proud.
BLACKWELL (voice-over): Ready for the event?
UNKNOWN: Getting there.
BLACKWELL (voice-over): My wife, Hannah, trained as a florist, figured out the youth training program.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): It's a feel. So, teaching kind of the basic concept, and then kind of letting their creativity go.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): I learned, I paid close attention, I asked questions, and I fell in love with it. I'm an example.
[00:00:00]
I purchased my first apartment. I purchased a car. I try to tell everybody it's an opportunity. Every place you step in, you take advantage of it.
BLACKWELL (voice-over): Our young people are blossoming and blooming every single day.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COATES: I love that. For the full story about Quilen and his important work, go to cnn.com/heroes. Hey, thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
